Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby

[RidgeHunter]

Well at least you qualified that diatribe! LOL

Like it or not, you can't have it both ways. You can't expect someone else to pay for your health care and then dictate all the terms without their input. That's hypocritical. Demanding that your government save you from "the bad man" who's paying your bills and providing you with a health insurance plan is the epitome of a crybaby.

Can't have it both ways? Fine. Get rid of the ACA. Can't? So, so sorry. Try harder. Crying over microscopic dots on Tampons has NOTHING to do with the welfare state.

And I strongly believe I'll continue to go the rest of my life without anyone but me paying for my insurance. Benefits? What are those? Never had 'em. I've been told twice in recent days to "run a business" and see how I feel by people who have never owned a business in their lives. Lawl. The "bad men" that pay my bills don't even have to pay half my social security tax for me.

But sure, keep boiling my argument down to a dreadlocked Occupier with my hand out. I'll continue cashing checks made out to my business and making fun of silly Republicans for giving up all reason in the name of butthurt.

 

[tRidiot]

Again... hyperbole. You know as well as anyone. All it does is antagonize, dismiss the legitimacy of intelligent debate and further polarize the participants.

Rail against it all you like, you're just as guilty as anyone else.

 

[RidgeHunter]

Again... hyperbole. You know as well as anyone. All it does is antagonize, dismiss the legitimacy of intelligent debate and further polarize the participants.

Rail against it all you like, you're just as guilty as anyone else.

I wasn't aware calling anyone implying anyone who disagree with the HL ruling is a welfare queen or supports welfare queens, even if the oppose the ACA, is intelligent debate.

This is a casual conversation.

 

[tRidiot]

Whatever... your whole tone, your method of describing the opposition and their stance IS polarizing, antagonistic, counterproductive and belittling.

Not gonna help "wake people up", Ridge. Jus'sayin'. You're free to think what you like and say what you like (within reason on a privately-owned forum). But when you come across as a prick, don't whine when people don't take you seriously and jump on your bandwagon.

 

[Glocktogo]

Can't have it both ways? Fine. Get rid of the ACA. Can't? So, so sorry. Try harder. Crying over microscopic dots on Tampons has NOTHING to do with the welfare state.

And I strongly believe I'll continue to go the rest of my life without anyone but me paying for my insurance. Benefits? What are those? Never had 'em. I've been told twice in recent days to "run a business" and see how I feel by people who have never owned a business in their lives. Lawl. The "bad men" that pay my bills don't even have to pay half my social security tax for me.

But sure, keep boiling my argument down to a dreadlocked Occupier with my hand out. I'll continue cashing checks made out to my business and making fun of silly Republicans for giving up all reason in the name of butthurt.

So why are you doing it? Since you don't get your contraceptives paid for by anyone and you don't pay for anyone's contraceptives, which horse is yours in this particular race? Why do you care whether or not some shrill feminists can force other people to pay for whatever they want, whenever they want it and get told to shut up and just do it while they pay?

CNBC has the answer in just three letters: OTC...Done!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101807865?__...yahoo&doc=101807865|Hobby Lobby outrage? Here

 

[RidgeHunter]

So why are you doing it? Since you don't get your contraceptives paid for by anyone and you don't pay for anyone's contraceptives, which horse is yours in this particular race? Why do you care whether or not some shrill feminists can force other people to pay for whatever they want, whenever they want it and get told to shut up and just do it while they pay?

Simple.

I don't believe using the personal religious beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby to skirt the ACA is legitimate.

I don't believe the ACA prohibits the owners of Hobby Lobby from free excercise of religion.

I believe this sets a wasteful, if not dangerous, precedent for individual rights applying to corporate regulation.

 

[SoonerP226]

The other side was sharing personal anecdotes, so I thought I would. I know several people who receive gov't assistance. Mainly food assistance and/or WIC. Only one of them is a liberal.

I'm just asking because some people confuse receiving earned benefits (e.g, Social Security, Military Retirement) with "accepting handouts."

 

[tRidiot]

Simple.

I don't believe using the personal religious beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby to skirt the ACA is legitamate.

I don't believe the ACA prohibits free excercise of religion.

I believe this sets a wasteful, if not dangerous, precedent for indivudual rights applying to corporate regulation.

A much simpler and less-antagonistic and belittling way to explain your point. Not that I believe it changes anything...


Let's face it, nothing's going to change. We've seen this kind of downward slide before, and America is headed the way of its predecessors. Who will the next great world power be? China? Maybe... will it be a free state, as compared to America when it rose to power?

I doubt it... but I'll probably be dead and gone, so all I can do is prepare my child and family.

 

[RidgeHunter]

Employment Division vs Smith and the RFRA came about because if peyote. The case had a much larger meaning than peyote.

Just like this one does.

This ain't about a heavy dose of progestin. At least the implications ain't. SCOTUS rulings mean quite a bit here.

There is some irony that Indians getting peyote paved the way for corporations becoming people.

 

[Glocktogo]

Simple.

I don't believe using the personal religious beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby to skirt the ACA is legitimate.

I don't believe the ACA prohibits the owners of Hobby Lobby from free excercise of religion.

I believe this sets a wasteful, if not dangerous, precedent for individual rights applying to corporate regulation.

We didn't make this screwy system they're using. When you attempt to force everyone to adhere to a narrow agenda, don't be surprised when people use whatever loopholes they can to squirm out of it. Look at it this way, HL could've done far more than they did. They actually used some judgement in where to draw the line. Besides, Patron Saint Bill Clinton is the one that signed the law they used against Obama. Poetic justice if you ask me.